comment #1

actionman says ...

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is utterly masterful. So underrated. I hate asking people if they've seen this film and then having them look at me quizzically; Three Burials of who? What? Phenomenal cinematography. I think I am going to pop it in the dvd player when I get home tonight.

This is a great interview overall.

comment #2

austin111 says ...

As one who lived through Vietnam and saw friends (male) affected by it in many different ways, I can say that Jones knows exactly what he's talking about. There would be such an outcry in this country and such a radicalization of youth that many people who haven't been bothered would finally be forced to question what a mess this country has become. And, yeah, the fence is a huge huge mistake. It will make us look weak and pathetic for years to come. It is a disaster that people who don't live in states along the border can't even begin to understand. Beyond that, The Three Burials is one of the most moving and beautiful films I've seen in many years --- better than No Country in some ways. I'm from Texas and I find the fence an affront to the very meaning of civilization and democracy.

comment #3

Jean says ...

TLJ is an incredible artist - I second the notion that 3 Burials was a hugely overlooked film. Yet, film nerd that I am, I watch dvd's with the commentaries on to glean any insightful ideas or beliefs the filmmakers had & I have to say I was very disappointed with the 3 Burials commentary: TLJ barely uttered a word, leaving us January Jones chiming in every other scene with "I loved that ..."

comment #4

Jay T. says ...

Yeah, you Mexicans who our economy relies on so much, stay on your side of the fence! I just can't stand to even talk to people who are pro-fence, it's utterly retarded. They did a study and the people who are most against immigration live predominantly in areas where there are no immigrants. Meaning, they have no fucking idea what they're talking about... those of us who live in communities with a lot of immigrants know better.

Anyway, you have to love what a straight-shooter, no bullshit kind of guy Tommy Lee Jones is.

Getting into the draft, I'm not sure Canada would be that happy about the population boost.

comment #5

Titus Pullo says ...

It's sad to say, but TLJ won't get the respect he's due until he passes I'm afraid.

Well, I've said everything I can say regarding draft, troop strength etc., etc. here on this board, my position is clear. TLJ is correct, Americans are living in a fantasy world, in which we always enough troops and cash and we're always number one, without effort, and of course being number one is a birthright, and the only danger to that birthright is some goddamn Hollywood liberal who won't acknowledge that birthright.

I understand the downward pressure on wages that illegal immigration causes, but it's always funny that the those whose adherence to laissez faire capitalism is legendary, the same people who never say 'boo' to big business, have such a huge problem w/ Mexicans coming across the border. Isn't it good for business from the supply sider POV? Maybe they wouldn't have a problem if Mexicans were Protestant?

comment #6

Edward says ...

That wall in Germany worked so well and aren't they building one in Israel too? I seem to remember a wall built around a gheto in Warsaw as well. Guess leaders of countries don't study history.

comment #7

Mgmax says ...

Who are all these righties advocating the Wall Street Journal open borders line?

comment #8

Titus Pullo says ...

Are you talkin' to me? If so, re-read my post... slower this time.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

I read your post fine, and it's ironic that you show understanding of the issue yet fall back on a simplistic right vs. left view which winds up supporting the corporate right's desire for constant downward pressure on wages from immigrants. The fact is, restricted immigration would be good for black America, good for the immigrants already here, and good for Mexico by cutting off the brain drain and increasing social pressure for reform and modernization. And some of those groups may eventually realize it, no matter how much big corporations hope they don't.

comment #10

Titus Pullo says ...

All I did is point out the disconnect between the view that whatever is good for the corporate bottom line is good for America, and the anti-immigration crowd's view of illegal immigration. Many of the same people who say those who have been displaced by outsourcing, have to retrain, expect to change jobs throughout their lives, realities of the global market, things always work out, blah, blah, blah, are the same ones who suddenly change their tune when it means the wrong kind of foreigners coming here. They only came here in those high numbers because they had our tacit invitation and the Club for Growth kept their mouths shut.

comment #11

Nate West says ...

The U.S. will either import farm labor (either legally or illegally) or export food production to Mexico and points south. That's the trend. As populations swell, housing will replace fresh produce production in California and Arizona; such produce (which now, in part, is already imported) will be entirely imported from foreign sources. Environmental and pestcide regulations in such foreign countries are lax, to say the least.

This is the trade-off. If zealots insist on putting up a fence, then, before long, the bulk of what is eaten in America will be grown on the other side of it. Such food dependence will really give the paranoid types something to fear.

comment #12

Jay T. says ...

I always find it amusing when people begin their opinions with "the fact is" ... while there may be some truth in what you say, in some areas that is simply not the case. Anyone who deduces the immigration debate to it would be good vs. it would be bad is seriously underestimating the complexity of the issue. Both would have pros and cons, but regardless a big fence is a stupid fucking idea.

comment #13

Mgmax says ...

I think that's what I said too, Jay T-- attempts to reduce it to a simple evil conservatives-kindly liberals paradigm, like every other issue in our politics in this Kossified age, are simpleminded. There are classic liberal-left constituencies for whom restricted immigration would be a boon; there are classic conservative-big business constituencies for whom open borders HAVE been a boon, all the way to the bank. There is no reason why the US cannot be humane and yet control and manage Mexican entry into the US, nothing obliges us to be overrun by the residents of a poorer nation and there is nothing immoral about managing said traffic to our advantage (indeed, it would obviously be MORE moral and humane to manage it to the entire nation's benefit rather than that of rich growers alone); and barring physical access is a perfectly reasonable way of doing so, practiced by most nations on earth. The instinctive reaction against a nasty mean wall is only sustainable through willful ignorance of all the other kinds of inhumanity and exploitation the current system produces.

comment #14

Jay T. says ...

On a side note, does anyone else find it fitting that the one issue where Bush diverges from most of the right wing is an issue that he would actually have some first-hand knowledge of, having lived in Texas? I use this to back up my assertion that most anti-immigration people tend to live in areas not affected by it. Not to say there aren't some hardcore anti-immigration groups living along the border, but in terms of opinions across the whole country.

comment #15

Sean E says ...

"If zealots insist on putting up a fence, then, before long, the bulk of what is eaten in America will be grown on the other side of it. Such food dependence will really give the paranoid types something to fear."

I don't know about that. We somehow manage to grow a bit of food up here in Canada without significant levels of illegal immigration to subsidize it. And I didn't realize that California and Arizona were exactly the breadbasket of the US. Unless you're worried about America being brought to her knees by the threat of a citrus embargo?

comment #16

dinther says ...

Jones hits on something that, to this day, boggles my mind.

The "outrage" over illegal immigration did not kick in until Republican strategists, desperate for a ploy to distract working-class American from the Iraq debacle and their declining (real) wages, invoked the classical political gambit made famous by Hitler and almost perfected by Milosevic: when economic times are down, blame foreigners.

But what is more remarkable, to me at least, is that we are still talking about immigration. And that some Americans are so utterly obtuse that they cannot see that they are being manipulated like little schoolchildren. Or that some who regard themselves as "educated" actually claim that this is a "security" issue.

comment #17

Jay T. says ...

Sean E -- uh............ I'm almost lost for words. California is a major, major, major crop producer (more than twice that of any other state). There's a hell of a lot more than orange groves north of Los Angeles. Practically the entire center of the state is agricultural (not to mention milk) so I'm not sure what on Earth you're talking about.

comment #18

huisache says ...

I've lived in South Texas all my life (am not hispanic) and do not hire illegals. Anybody who thinks this fence is going to have any effect has never lived down here or seen the country they are talking about fencing. I agree with the comments about the effects on the wages of working people but the fence will not work and is going to be an ecological disaster. Look at the country in Melquiades Estrada and tell me with a straight face that it can be policed effectively. Insane bs from politicians.

comment #19

Mgmax says ...

"Republican strategists, desperate for a ploy to distract working-class American from the Iraq debacle and their declining (real) wages, invoked the classical political gambit made famous by Hitler"

Good thing we stopped talking about it in simplistic black and white terms. Sheesh.

comment #20

dinther says ...

Mgmax: identify what is inaccurate about my prior statement.

1. Republican strategists inaugurated this campaign in August of 2006, when the situation in Iraq had turned markedly grim.

2. Republican strategists did so precisely because they wanted a wedge issue to motivate antipathetic white male voters in the upcoming election.

3. Real wages have declined during the Bush presidency, and had done so as of August 2006.

4. Hitler rose to prominence in the 1930s in the throes of Germany's economic depression, and in the late 30s, based in large part upon blaming Jews for Germany's economic woes.

The description I provided earlier was apt. Again, please identify any part of it that is inaccurate.